imA^ 


■^i^*^?^!^' 


T.  NoDougRll 


Is  Inerrancy 
A  New  Test  of  Orthodoxy? 


.^^^-i  Of  mfic^ 


.'■0 


BS480 
.Ml  37 


;opY 


2 


S  INERRANCY 


A  New  Test  of  .Orthodoxy? 


BY 


THOS.    McDOUGALL. 


CINCINNATI : 

Robert  Clarke  &  Co.,  Printers. 
1893. 


E)S  ^e 


iVl 


^■^ 


IS   INERRANCY 


A  New  Test  of  Orthodoxy? 


/by 
THOS.    McDOUGALL. 


CINCINNATI : 

Robert  Clarke  &  Co.,   Printers. 

1893. 


IS  INERRANCY  A  NEW  TEST  OF  ORTHODOXY? 


A  discussion  of  more  or  less  intensity,  and  accompanied  with  much 
rhetoric  and  apparent  feeling,  has  arisen  in  these  days,  on  the  above  sub- 
ject. Here  are  declarations  on  the  subject  which,  being  typical,  state  a  certain 
position  fairly : 

The  Eev.  T.  S.  Hamlin,  D.D.,  says : 

"These  principles  are  clear  and  true  quite  apart  from  this  particular 
doctrine  or  opinion  of  inerrancy.  Tim  I,  for  one,  neither  affirm  nor  deny.  It  is 
a  theory  wholly  in  the  air.  No  living  man,  no  man  that  has  lived  for  centuries, 
has  seen  the  original  autographs  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  We  can  neither 
prove  nor  disprove  the  theory.  We  are  ignorant  about  this  matter,  and  should 
be  content  to  remain  so." 

The  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  says: 

"I  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  theory  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  orig- 
inal autographs.  I  neither  affirm  nor  deny  it.  Whether  the  original  auto- 
graphs were  free  from  the  difficulties  which  exist  in  the  present  text,  or  not,  is 
one  of  those  things  which  no  man  can  find  out.  This  theory  may  be  true,  or 
it  may  be  purely  imaginary.  God  knows ;  I  do  not.  I  am  perfectly  contented 
with  my  ignorance." 

The  portion  of  the  ordination  vow  of  each  minister,  elder,  and  deacon,  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  bearing  on  this  subject,  is  as  follows : 

1.  Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be 
the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice? 

2.  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this 
Church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ? 

3.  Do  you  approve  of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  these  United  States? 

It  is  claimed  with  great  confidence,  and  with  an  assumption  of  the  right 
to  judicially  determine  the  question,  and  infallibly  construe  the  constitution  of 
our  Church,  that  the  declaration  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  the  es- 
sential part  of  which  is  as  follows  :  "  Our  Church  holds  that  the  inspired  Word, 
as  it  came  from  God,  is  without  error,"  is  the  imposition  of  a  new  test  of  ortho- 
doxy, an  essential  enlargement,  limitation,  or  variation^  of  the  foregoing  ordina- 


[-1] 

tion  vow,  a  vital  additiou  to   its  terms,  attempted   to  be   imposed  without  au- 
thority, aud  which  is  denounced  as  follows  : 

The  Rev.  T.  S.  Hamlin,  D.D.,  says:  • 

"Now,  if  the  inerrancy  deliverance  stood  upon  the  same  footing,  it  would 
be  a  simple  and  harmless  matter.  But  the  resolution  carefully  exalts  this 
opinion  to  the  level  of  a  doctrine.  It  asserts  that  'our  Church  holds'  it.  It 
assumes  that  every  minister  assented  to  it  at  his  ordination.  It  calls  upon  him, 
if  he  does  not  now  believe  it,  to  leave  the  Church.  It  embraces  in  this  sum- 
mons all  ordained  officers,  elders,  and  deacons,  as  well  as  ministers.  Aud,  if 
they  do  not  withdraw,  it  '  enjoins'  the  courts  of  the  Church  to  '  speedily'  disci- 
pline them  and  eject  them.  In  other  words,  this  deliverance,  under  the  guise 
of  an  interpretation  of  the  standards,  sets  up  a  totally  new  doctrine,  which  it 
declares  the  Church  '  holds '  and  makes  it  a  test  of  ministerial  and  official 
standing. 

"  Now,  I  deliberatfely  and  solemnly  pronounce  this  an  act  of  the  grossest 
usurpation,  to  resist  which  is  the  urgent  duty  of  every  Presbyterian  that  loves 
his  Church,  and  cherishes  her  historical  stand  for  liberty,  both  personal  and  ec- 
clesiastical. The  General  Assembly  is  as  much  bound  by  the  Constitution  as 
is  the  humblest  minister  or  member  of  the  Church.  It  has  no  more  authority 
to  impose  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  its  members  upon  us  as  a  doctrine,  than 
it  has  to  declare  that  its  views  about  lynching  shall  have  all  the  force  and 
Aveight  of  a  Federal  Statute,  and  to  send  a  district  attorney  or  a  judge  to  prison 
because  he  fails  to  prosecute  and  convict  accordingly." 

To  one  who,  as  an  elder,  has  recently  subscribed  to  this  ordination  vow, 
and  who,  before  its  subscription  could  say,  as  Hugh  Miller  said  in  his  letter  to 
Lord  Brougham,  June,  1839:  "I  never  signed  the  Confession  of  her  Faith, 
l)ut  I  do  more,  I  believe  it"  this  discussion  on  "  Inerrancy"  is  perplexing  and 
amazing. 

Hugh  Miller's  declaration — as  the  writer's  subscription — was  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  as  it  stands,  "  unrevisecl;"  this  too  in  the  exercise  of  the  largest 
liberty  worthy  of  the  name — the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  makes  us  free  ;  im- 
plicit obedience  to  law  and  properly  constituted  authority ;  the  liberty  that 
knows  no  other  will  but  God's;  the  liberty  that  seeks  only  to  know  what  God 

has  said,  and  then 

"  Theirs  not  to  make  reply, 

Theirs  not  to  reason  why." 

It  is  a  liberty  that  has  well  defined  convictions,  is  resolute  in  their  defense, 
believes  in  settling  differences  according  to  law,  accepts  decisions  thus  made, 


[  5  ] 

recognizes  and  discharges  its  obligations,  and  accords  to  all  others  the  rights  it 
claims  for  itself.  This  was  the  liberty  of  the  school  denominated  by  some  as 
ultra-Calvinistic,  Puritanical,  sternly  orthodox,  narrow,  unbending  and  inflex- 
ible, of  whom  the  Rev.  John  Kerr,  D.D.,  in  his  paper  on  "  Scottish  National- 
ity," says : 

"  Mr.  Buckle,  too,  might  have  remembered  his  own  remark,  made  we  be- 
lieve also  by  Rerausat,  that  wherever  it  has  gone,  in  France,  Switzerland,  Hol- 
land, Britain  and  America,  tlie  Calvinistic  faith  has  shown  itself  'the  unfaiUnfj 
friend  of  constitutional  liberty.'  Historians  have  found  it  difficult  to  account  for 
this,  while  they  admit  its  truth.  We  believe  it  has  arisen  not  merely  from  the 
form  of  government  with  which  it  has  linked  itself,  '  one  of  ordered  freedom,' 
but  from  tlie  fact  that  it  has  always  carried  its  appeal  past  human  authority  in 
religion  'io  the  Word  of  God;'  that  it  has  taught  men  to  think  for  themselves 
as  in  His' sight,  and  to  seek  that  personal  relation  to  Him  which  makes  them 
free  with  the  liberty  of  his  children.  It  proclaims  the  grand  divine  equality, 
'  One  is  your  master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  brethren,'  out  of  which  are  built 
up  again  service  and  law  and  comely  order  in  church  and  state,  but  notv  tempered  by 
the  action  of  reason  and  love.  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  simply  Christianity, 
and  so  it  is ;  but  there  are  forms  of  Christianity  more  or  less  pronounced,  and, 
while  we  have  great  respect  for  the  contribution  that  other  forms  have  brought 
in  their  own  way,  we  believe  that  the  Puritans  of  England,  old  and  new,  and 
the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland,  have,  with  all  their  defects,  led  the  van  in  the 
cause  of  human  freedom." 

Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  among  these  men  were  to  be  found  the  intellect- 
ual and  spiritual  giants  of  the  race,  men  of  great  spiritual  insight  and  fidelity 
to  conviction,  who  believed  in  an  inerrant  God  and  his  inerrant  word,  and  in 
and  by  that  faith  wrought  for  liberty  many  of  the  blessings  we  now  enjoy  ? 

What  a  contrast  they  present  to  some  of  the  "advanced"  scholars  of 
modern  times,  who,  knowing  no  more  of  God  and  his  revelation,  can 
neither  affirm  nor  deny  that  the  word  of  the  inerrant  God  as  it  came 
from  him,  was  inerrant;  this  because  they  can  not  handle  and  cross-examine 
the  original  manuscripts,  and  subject  them  to  the  tests  of  their  so-called 
"  modern  scholarship,"  and  "  advanced  thought,"  and  man's  finite,  sin-limited 
intellect. 

Passing,  for  another  occasion,  the  extraordinary  character  of  these  attacks 
on  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  supreme  judicial  and  legislative 
body  of  our  beloved  Presbyterian  Church,  also  the  times,  places,  and  manner 
of  these  attacks,  as  bearing  on  the  question  of  respect  for  and  obedience  to  prop- 


[6] 

erly  coustituted  authority,  by  those  who  are  subject  to  that  authority,  and  who 
have  obligated  themselves  to  be  teachers,  by  precept  aud  example,  of  obedi- 
ence to  that  authority  ;  and  also  the  assumption  of  authority  and  superior  wis- 
dom manifested  therein,  and  Avhich  is  inconsistent  with  that  humility  which 
adorns  genius  and  is  essential  to  Christian  peace  and  work,  let  us  examine  this 
latest  issue  in  Presbyterian  ecclesiastical  circles — '^Inerrancy  a  neiv  test  of  ortho- 
doxy." 

In  so  doing,  let  us  remember  that  other  and  important  pendiug  issues,  such 
as  :  "  Have  Ave  a  God-given,  God-inspired  Bible,  so  certain,  so  well  defined  that 
it  is  worthy  of  the  faith  of  the  race  ?  "  "  Can  a  God-inspired  book  be  false  in  its 
historical  statements?"  "Can  the  saving  benetits  of  Christ's  redemption  be 
enjoyed  in  any  other  way,  and  by  any  other  persons,  tLan  as  declared  by  the 
terms  of  the  God-revealed  scheme  ?  " — are  not  to  be  side-tracked  or  lost  sight 
of  by  the  dust  and  clamor  of  this  inerrancy  controversy. 

THE   ASSERTED   POSITIONS. 

a.  It  is  asserted  with  the  greatest  confidence,  "  that  the  condition  or  qual- 
ity of  what  are  called  the  original  manuscripts  of  the  Bible,  as  to  being  errant 
or  inerrant,  is,  in  the  absence  of  the  originals,  incapable  of  proof,  and  is  of  no 
consequence  as  a  matter  of  faith,  or  as  affecting  the  God-inspired  quality  of 
the  Bible  as  it  now  is." 

b.  It  is  further  asserted  that  the  ordination  vow  does  not  embrace  as  a 
part  of  its  terms,  a  subscription  to  the  inerrancy  of  the  Word  of  God,  as  it 
was  given  by  Him  to  the  race. 

c.  And  further,  that  the  terms  of  that  vow  are  broad  enough  to  include 
those  who  believe  the  originals  were  inerrant,  as  well  as  those  who  believe  they 
were  errant,  and  those  who  have  no  belief  in  the  matter. 

Let  us  examine  these  in  their  order. 


IS  THE  QUALITY  OR  CONDITIO^J  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  MANUSCRIPTS  OF  THE  BIBLE 
AS  IT  CAME  FROM  GOD,  AS  TO  BEING  ERRANT  OR  INEP.RANT,  INCAPABLE 
OF  PROOF  IN  THE  ABSENCE  OF  THE  ORIGINALS  ;  AND  IS  THIS  OF  NO 
CONSEQUENCE  AS  A  MATTER  OF  FAITH,  OR  AS  AFFECTING  THE  GOD- 
INSPIRED    QUALITY    OF   THE   BIBLE   AS    IT   NOW   IS? 

Let  us  pass,  at  thjs  point,  the  claim  that  these  originals  having  existed  at 
some  time,  their  condition  must  have  been  settled  while  thus  in  existence,  and 


[ '  ] 

that  as  a  matter  of  history  the  fact  of  their  existence  must  rest  on  the  same  evi- 
dence as  their  essential  qualities,  and  which  enable  us  to  say  they  were  imme- 
diately inspired  by  God. 

Does  the  absence  of  the  original  manuscripts,  as  evidence,  conclusively  pre- 
clude proof  of  essential  quality,  while  permitting  conclusive  proof  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  originals,  as  a  matter  of  fact?  Can  we  separate  the  essential 
qualities  of  a  thing  from  the  fact  of  its  existence,  and  in  that  absence  con- 
clusively prove  the  fact  of  its.  existence,  and  yet  be  incapable  of  proving  its 
essential  qualities  ?  Can  we  prove  the  existence  of  Julius  Csesar,  as  a  man, 
without  being  able  to  produce  and  examine  the  original  ;  and  yet  affirm,  be- 
cause of  that  absence,  our  utter  inability  to  prove  the  existence  in  him  of  the 
essential  qualities  of  a  man,  and  which  enable  us  to  say  he  was  the  man  Julius 
Caesar  ? 

In  an  action  in  a  civil  court,  for  recovery  on  a  lost  promissory  note,  in  the 
absence  of  the  note,  can  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  note  be  proved,  with- 
out proving  the  terms  essential  to  make  it  a  note  for  which  judgment  may  be 
rendered, — not  the  color,  kind  of  paper,  nor  the  manner  of  writing,  but  the  ex- 
istence of  the  essential  terms,  words  and  qualities  that  enable  the  court  to  say 
that  it  was  a  "  note,"  fixed  in  its  terms,  and  definite  in  its  obligations,  and 
therefore  in  fact  existed,  and  was  the  note  it  was  claimed  to  be. 

Can  there  be  proof  of  and  belief  in  the  "fact"  of  the  existence  of  the 
original  manuscripts,  as  the  Word  immediately  inspired  by  God,  in  the  absence 
of  the  originals,  without  proof  of  and  belief  in  the  essential  terms  and  qual- 
ities which  make  it  the  Word  thus  inspired  by  God?  Is  not  confession  of  in- 
ability to  prove  that  the  original  was  inerrant,  a  confession  of  inability  to  prove 
there  ever  was  an  original  ? 

Ingersoll  says:  "I  neither  affirm  nor  deny  there  is  a  God.  I  only  say, 
I  can  not  prove  there  is  a  God."  If  we  can  neither  affirm  nor  deny,  by 
reason  of  the  absence  of  the  original  manuscripts,  their  essential  qualities  and 
terms,  does  this  not  necessarily  place  us  in  the  same  position  as  to  the  fact  of 
their  ever  having  existed  ?  Can  we  separate  the  thing  from  the  essential  qual- 
ities and  terms,  which  make  it  possible  to  exist  as  the  thing  ? 

Is  not  the  concession  of  possible  error  in  what  God  gave  us  as  his  will,  the 
destruction  of  the  God-inspired  quality  of  that  revelation,  and  therefore  the 
destruction  of  the  Bible  as  it  now  is,  as  the  Word  of  God  ? 

Consider  the  conception  of  the  character  of  God  involved  in  the  possibility 


[  8  ]  . 

of  error,  or  falsehood  in  his  revelation  to  man.  An  infinite  and  omniscient  God 
gives  to  finite  man  a  revelation  of  his  will,  on  which  he  commands  man  to  act 
as  the  rule  and  conduct  of  his  life.  The  truth  of  every  statement  in  that 
revelation  is  known  to  God.  The  conclusive  presumption  is  that  every  state- 
ment therein  made  is  true  in  the  absence  of  a  declaration  from  God  to  the  con- 
trary. Knowing  what,  if  any  part,  is  errant  or  untrue  in  that  revelation,  if 
any  statement,  or  part  is  errant  or  untrue,  should  God  fail  to  declare  and  make 
known  such  errors  or  untruths,  what  must  be  his  character? 

What  do  men  call  the  failure  to  make  known  the  existence  of  error  or 
falsehood  in  a  document  by  one  who  knows  of  the  existence  of  the  error  or 
falsehood,  and  who,  as  its  author  places  the  document  in  circulation  as  true, 
or  delivers  the  same  to  a  party  who  in  receiving  and  relying  on  it,  pre- 
sumes the  document  to  be  true,  being  ignorant  of  the  error  or  falsehood  therein 
contained?  Silence  at  times  is  criminal.  There  are  times  and  circumstances 
when  the  permitted  circulation  of  error  as  truth,  is  criminal. 

It  would  seem  as  if  the  inability  or  unwillingness  to  affirm  the  inerrancy 
of  the  original  manuscripts  in  their  absence,  can  only  arise  from  the  conviction 
or  fear  of  a  possibility  of  discovering  the  existence  of  error  or  falsehood 
therein,  on  finding  the  originals,  and  on  subjecting  them  to  the  cross-examina- 
tion of  so-called  higher  criticism. 

What  must  be  the  character  of  one  claiming  to  be  God,  who  gives  to  man 
as  his  will  a  revelation  which  it  is  possible  may  be  errant  or  false  in  parts,  and 
if  so,  must  be  known  to  him,  which  errors  or  falsehoods  he  fails  to  specify  or 
correct,  and  which  he  permits  to  be  received,  believed  and  acted  on  as  iner- 
raut,  and  on  which  he  asks  his  finite  creatures  to  risk  their  all  for  time  and 
eternity  ? 

Possible  error  or  falsehood  in  God's  Word,  not  designated  or  pointed  out 
by  Him,  permitted  to  exist  and  pass  current  as  truth,  as  inerrant!  What  kind 
of  a  conception  of  God's  absolute  verity,  justice,  and  love,  have  such  minds? 
Surely  the  inability  to  affirm  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  manuscripts,  the  Word 
of  God  as  he  gave  it,  in  the  absence  of  the  originals,  does  not  arise  from  the 
fear  that  on  discovering  the  originals  it  might  be  found  that  the  spelling,  gram- 
mar, or  punctuation  were  not  what  they  ought  to  be  to  suit  the  fastidious  tastes 
of  so-called  advanced  modern  scholarship. 

To  warrant  the  protests,  the  pathetic  appeals,  and  solemn  declarations 
that  are  being  made  by  Drs.  Hamlin,  Van  Dyke  and  others,  on  this  subject  of 


[0] 

the  inerrancy  of  the  original  manuscript?,  there  must  be  the  fear  that  if  ever 
they  are  discovered,  higher  criticism  might  find  therein  false  historical  or  other 
statements,  which  God  had  given  to  the  race  as  a  part  of  His  Word,  without 
disclosing  their  falsity.  How  the  higher  critics  would  blush  for  their  reputa- 
tions, if  they  affirmed  inerrancy  in  the  original  manuscripts  in  their  absence,  and 
afterward  they  should  be  discovered,  and  on  examination  be  found  to  contain 
error  or  falsehood.  This  might  be  hard  on  the  higher  critics,  but  what  of  God? 
How  would  his  character  be  affected  by  such  a  discovery  ? 

The  reputation  of  the  higher  critics  for  definiteuess  of  statement,  exact- 
ness, and  mathematical  certainty  of  conclusions  must  be  carefully  preserved, 
at  whatever  cost,  from  the, possibility  and  effect  of  such  a  discovery.  They, 
therefore,  neither  deny  nor  affirm  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  manuscripts  in 
their  absence,  even  though  their  position  involves  the  destruction  of  God's 
Word,  making  it  impossible  to  have  faith  in  any  revelation,  and  above  all,  in- 
volves the  destruction  of  the  character  of  God  Himself  for  inerrancy,  absolute 
truthfulness,  and  fair  dealing  with  man. 

If  the  Bible  as  it  now  is — as  men  use  these  words — is  inerrant,  immediately 
inspired  by  God,  then  it  has  always  been  so.  If  errant  in  whole  or  in  part,  how 
can  it  be  of  God  ?  How  can  it  be  the  work  of  an  inerrant  God  ?  No  other 
God  but  an  inerrant  God,  and  no  other  revelation  but  an  inerrant  one  is  worthy 
the  confidence  of  the  race,  on  which  the  soul  of  man  can  rest  its  eternal  destiny 
in  safety. 

In  the  absence  of  the  original,  in  order  to  now  believe  in  the  Bible  as  in- 
spired by  God  in  any  sense,  is  it  not  necessary  to  prove  that  God  gave  us  this 
Word,  and  that  it  was  immediately  inspired  by  Him? 

The  quality  of  inspiration,  of  iuerrancy  of  the  Word  must  be  proven  as 
a  "■fact"  in  order  to  prove  that  it  did  in  fact  come  from  God — that  we  have 
any  Word  of  God  at  all.  How  can  we  prove  any  word  or  message  ever  came 
from  God,  either  in  the  absence  or  presence  of  the  so-called  original,  without 
proof  of  the  quality  of  its  being  God-inspired,  inerrant? 

What  makes  the  Bible  in  any  sense,  in  any  part,  the  Word  of  God  ? 

How  is  the  fact  of  inspiration — inerrancy  in  any  part  or  statement — proven 
now,  in  the  absence  of  the  so-called  originals? 

Why  does  not  the  same  evidence,  the  same  reasoning,  apply  to  the  Word 
as  it  came  from  God  to  prove  its  inspiration,  and  that  it  did  in  fixct  come  fi'om 
Him,  as  applies  to  the  Word  as  it  now  is  ? 


[  10] 


"  INERRANCY  AS  TO   ESSENTIALS,  ERRANCY  AS  TO  NON-ESSENTIALS. 

To  break  the  force  of  this  position,  a  very  curious  distinction  is  sought  to 
be  made,  between  inerrancy  as  to  that  which  is  called  essential  to  faith  and 
practice,  and  what  is  called  "  merely  human  setting,"  or  non-essential.  What 
or  Avho  authorizes  this  distinction,  we  fail  to  understand.  It  is  assumed, 
evolved  from  the  wish  of  those  who  make  it.  The  Bible  does  not  make  it. 
God  has  not  made,  revealed  nor  authorized  any  such  distinction.  He  has  not 
drawn  the  line,  nor  catalogued  what  are  claimed  to  be  inerrant  essentials,  and 
errant  non-essentials. 

If  such  a  distinction  is  warranted,  Avhich  we  deny,  how  can  the  fact  be 
proved,  in  their  absence,  that  the  originals  had  the  quality  of  being  God-in- 
spired, or  inerrant,  as  to  Avhat  is  claimed  to  be  essential  to  faith  and  practice, 
and  yet  there  be  an  utter  inability  to  prove  by  the  same  evidence  the  quality 
of  that  which  is  claimed  to  be  non-essential,  what  is  claimed  to  be  merely  his- 
torical, with  the  rhetorical  pyrotechnics  of  "human  setting,"  if  any  person  can 
define  or  tell  what  that  is  ? 

It  being  conceded,  as  it  must  be,  if  it  is  in  any  sense  the  inspired  Word 
of  God,  that  the  ab.«ence  of  the  original  manuscripts  does  not  preclude  con- 
clusive proof  of,  nor  belief  in  the  fact  of  their  existence,  nor  of  their  God-in- 
spired quality  as  to  what  are  claimed  to  be  matters  essential  to  faith  and 
practice ;  how  is  it  possible  on  the  same  evidence  to  preclude  proof  of, 
and  believe  in  the  God-inspired  quality  as  to  matters  historical,  and  those 
alleged  to  be  non-essential,  when  applied  to  a  book,  a  unit,  a  revelation 
from  God,  and  which  nowhere  asserts  or  intimates  that  any  such  dis- 
tinction exists,  between  matters  claimed  to  be  essential  to  faith  and  prac- 
tice, and  those  of  so-called  history  or  human  setting?  How  can  we  take  the 
unit,  the  book,  the  thing,  the  fixed  quantity,  in  the  absence  of  its  original, 
and  prove  and  believe,  in  that  absence,  the  fact  of  its  existence,  and  that  in 
matters  essential  to  faith  and  practice,  whatever  these  may  be,  the  original  had 
the  quality  of  being  God-inspired,  "inerrant,"  and  yel  assert  our  inability  to 
prove  the  quality  of  inerrancy  as  to  the  other  parts  of  the  unit,  or  book? 

"  Tlie  Ordination  Vow  and  the  Admissions." 

What  must  be  the  condition  of  one  who  has  taken  the  ordination  vow  and 
admits  the  following : 


[11] 

a.  God  is,  and  is  a  spirit  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable,  iiierrant, 
never  did  and  never  could  make  a  mistake,  uo  otlier  God  being  worthy  of  the 
faith  and  worship  of  the  race. 

b.  This  infinite  God,  a  spirit,  gave  to  finite  man  his  creature,  a  revelation 
of  his  will,  a  compilation,  a  unit,  a  fixed  quantity,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  without  which  man  could  not  know  any  thing,  by  reason, 
science  or  otherwise,  as  to  his  will. 

c.  The  original  manuscripts  of  this  revelation,  book,  or  compilation,  though 
uow  lost,  we  can  demonstrate,  by  existing  evidence,  to  have  once  existed,  and 
by  the  same  evidence  can  demonstrate  that  they  possessed  the  quality  of  being 
God-inspired  and  inerraut  as  to  all  matters  therein  contained  which  we  claim 
are  essential  to  faith  and  practice. 

d.  Notwithstanding  the  foregoing,  we  can  not  prove,  on  the  same  evidence 
as  demonstrates  the  fact  of  existence  and  their  inerrant  quality  as  to  what  we 
claim  to  be  essential  to  faith 'and  practice,  the  inerrant  quality  of  such  matters 
in  said  revelation  as  we  claim  are  non-essentials,  purely  historical,  and  belong 
to  that  indefinable,  elastic  quantity,  "  the  human  setting,"  although  the  reve- 
lation makes  uo  such  distinction  or  classification  as  to  essentials  and  non- 
essentials. 

In  other  words,  we  admit  a  revelation  came  from  God,  was  God-inspired, 
that  it  once  existed,  and  that  every  thing  Gpd  gives  as  his  work  is  inerrant; 
but  in  the  absence  of  the  original  of  this  God-inspired  revelation,  while  ad- 
mitting Ave  can  prove  the  fact  of  its  existence,  and  on  proper  evidence  demon- 
strate that  the  original  possessed  the  quality  of  inerrancy  as  to  all  matters 
which  we  claim  are  essential  to  faith  and  j^ractice,  we  can  neither  affirm  nor 
deny,  can  not  prove  on  the  same  evidence,  that  what  are  called  by  us  matters 
of  history,  non-essentials,  are  either  errant  or  inerrant?  Prove  theTact  of  exist- 
ence and  quality  of  inerrancy  as  to  essentials  to  faith  and  practice,  but  can  not 
prove  the  quality  of  its  non-essentials,  its  historical  statements  on  the  same 
evidence,  in  the  absence  of  the  original.     Whither? 

By  what  rule  of  evidence,  or  by  what  process  of  reasoning,  intelligible  to 
a  man  of  sound  mind,  cau  a  believer  in  a  God-inspired  record,  which  nowhere 
separates  or  classifies  its  statements  into  what  are  called  the  essentials  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  the  non-essentials  of  what  are  called  history  or  "  human  set- 
ting," justify  his  faith  in  the  existence  of  such  a  record  in  the  absence  of  the 


[  1-^  ] 

original,  having  the  essential  quality  of  inspiration  or  inerrancy  as  to  one  part, 
and  deny  his  ability  to  prove  the  inspiration  or  inerrancy  of  the  other  part  ? 

"  The  Result  of  the  Concession  " 

As  we  have  said,  is  not  the  concession  of  possible  error  in  what  God  gave  us 
as  His  Word,  the  destruction  of  the  God-inspired  quality  of  that  Word,  and 
therefore  the  destruction  of  the  Bible  as  it  now  is,  as  the  Word  of  God?  Is 
not  the  confession  of  inability  to  prove  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  manu- 
scripts because  of  their  absence,  the  confession  of  an  inability  to  prove  the 
fact  that  they  ever  existed, — inerrancy  being  the  essential  quality  of  the  orig- 
inal manuscripts  to  warrant  the  proof  of  and  the  belief  in  the  fact  that  they 
came  from  God  and  ever  existed  as  immediately  inspired  by  God? 

Who  can  certainly  and  infallibly  draw  the  line  between  what  is  called  in- 
errant  and  what  is  called  errant ;  Avhat  is  essential  to  faith  and  practice,  and 
what  is  not  essential ;  what  is  God-given  and  what  is  man-made,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  revelation  from  God  on  the  subject  ?  Where  is  the  warrant  for  such 
a  distinction? 

God  has  made  no  such  distinction,  no  such  classification  ;  he  has  not  re- 
vealed to  any  man  what  is  claimed  to  be  his  iuerrant  work  in  His  Word,  and 
what  in  that  Word  is  claimed  to  be  the  errant  work  of  man.  He  has  not  said 
there  is  in  it  any  of  man's  errant  work.  And  what  man  dares  alter,  change, 
revise  or  attempt  to  improve  upon  this  God-inspired  record,  and  assert  that 
any  part  of  it,  even  so-called  human  setting  is  man's  errant  work? 

What  kind  of  faith  will  be  the  product  of  doctrines  such  as  the  following, 
touching  the  Bible  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  in  certain  parts,  and  ' '  Thus  saith  er 
rant  man,"  in  other  parts — which  is  which,  to  be  determined  by  the  whim,  passion, 
interest,  or  ^o-called  advanced  scholarship  of  rhan's  sin-limited,  finite  intellect  ? 
Will  not  the  product  of  such  doctrines  be  a  nerveless,  boneless,  sinewless  faith, 
driven  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,  without  stability  ? 

The  air  is  filled  with  the  pyrotechnics  of  liberty,  the  gush  of  charity,  and 
the  clamor  of  "  peace  and  work."  Do  not  assert  any  thing;  do  not  deny  any 
thing,  lest  hurt  is  given  to  some  one's  feelings,  and  division  and  dissension  is 
caused.  Do  not  cherish  or  express  convictions,  for  they  are  inconvenient  and 
troublesome  things  to  have  and  maintain  ;  banish  theories,  only  let  peace  and 
plenty  of  it  prevail,  and  give  men  a  chance  to  work.  This  is  the  new  stand- 
ard ;  the  latest  rallying  cry  of  the  fearfuls. 


[  13] 

Only  peacefully  permit  the  deadly  })oisou  to  work  so  that  faith  in  God's 
Word  be  undermined,  honey-combed  by  the  sappers  and  miners  of  a  thinly 
veneered  rationalism  and  agnosticism !  Only  permit  them  to  carry  on  their 
destructive  business  without  hindrance,  and  leave  us  without  a  faith  or  a 
Bible,  God-inspired,  on  which  the  soul  of  man  can  safely  rest  its  eternal 
destiny  ! 

Why  not  have  convictions  and  express  them  ?  Why  not  say  in  what  we 
believe,  whether  in  an  errant  or  in  an  inerraut  Bible,  whether  in  a  Bible 
part  God-made  and  part  man-made,  with  no  one  to  say  where  God  begins  and 
errant  man  ends,  or  in  a  Bible  sent  from  God,  immediately  inspired  by  God, 
inerraut  in  every  part  from  beginning  to  end  ? 

Hovv  must  the  claims  and  assumptions  of  certain  modern  scholars  in  deal- 
ing with  the  inspired  word  of  God  appear  to  Him,  "  who  doeth  according  to 
his  will  in  the  armies  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  earth?  " 

II. 

DOES  THE  ORDINATION  VOW  EMBRACE,  AS  A  PART  OF  ITS  TERMS,  A  BELIEF 
IN  THE  INERRANCY  OF  THE  WORD  OF  GOD  AS  IT  WAS  GIVEN  BY  HIM 
TO   MEN? 

The  VOW  declares  "the  Scriptures  'of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be 
the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

How  shall  this  vow  be  construed,  and  what  is  involved  in  its  terms? 

Bides  for  the  Construction  of  the  Vow. 

a.  The  party  taking  it  should,  as  to  its  performance  by  himself,  construe 
it  in  every  case  of  reasonable  doubt,  against  himself  and  in  favor  of  the 
Church.  He  should  give  a  generous  performance  of  its  terms,  so  as  to  carry 
out  the  purpose  of  the  obligation — the  peace,  purity,  and  faith  of  the  Church, 
the  promotion  of  confidence,  of  certainty  and  faith  in  the  Bible  as  God-given 
and  God  inspired. 

b.  Its  terms  are  to  be  taken  in  their  plain,  ordinary,  common-sense  mean- 
ing ;  not  in  a  forced,  technical,  unusual  sense. 

c.  Its  terms  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  what  is  called  the  historic 
faith  of  the  Church;  the  well-known  construction,  as  evidenced  by  precedent 
and  otherwise,  prevailing  at  the  time  the  vow  was  enacted  and  taken. 


[  14] 

Such  being  some  9f  the  rules  of  coustruction,  let  us  now  consider  what  is 
involved  in  the  terms  of  the  vow. 

The  Tenns  of  the  Voiv. 

(1).  It  involves  a  belief  by  the  subscriber,  at  the  time  of  subscription  and 
as  long  as  he  remains  obligated  by  it,  in  a  book  or  unit — a  definite,  fixed,  un- 
alterable quantity  existing  as  "  the  Word  of  God,"  and  present  in  his  mind  at 
the  time  of  subscription  as  distinguished  from  the  work  or  word  of  man.  The 
subscriber  must  have  had  present  in  his  mind  at  the  time  of  subscription  a 
Word  of  God — not^  a  word  of  God  and  man — as  a  definite,  existing  quan- 
tity, whose  terms  he  understood  and  to  which  he  gave  intelligent  assent  as 
the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

(2).  It  involves  a  belief  that  this  Word  of  God  was  given  wholly  by  God 
and  immediately  inspired  by  Him. 

(3).  It  involves  a  belief  in  that  Word  of  God  as  being  "  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice."  That  is,  the  book  to  which  subscription  is  made  ts 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

(4).  It  involves  a  belief  in  this  fixed,  existing  quantity  immediately 
inspired  by  God  as  inerrant,  not  capable  of  error — as  God  is  not. 

(5).  It  involves  a  belief  that  this  Word,  as  it  came  from  God  was 
inerrant  and  that  it  remains  inerrant  for  all  time. 

If  these  propositions  are  correct,  the  first  thing  that  strikes  us  as  strange 
in  this  present  controversy  is  the  attempted  distinction  between  the  book  as  it 
'■^wa^'"  and  "  as  it  noM)  is."  How  can  there  be  a  difference,  and  if  there  is,  what 
is  it? 

The  subscription  to  the  vow  does  not  call  for  a  belief  in  any 
particular  publisher's  edition  or  style  of  what  is  called  the  Bible. 
The  belief  is  in  the  Word  of  God — not  in  the  work  or  word  of  man — 
and  this  excludes  the  belief  that  there  is  in  the  book  any  thing  of  man's  as  dis- 
tinguished from  God's.  So  far  as  God  used  any  agency  for  the  communication 
of  His  will,  and  in  so  far  as  it  was  essential  to  make  it  His  will — to  that  ex- 
tent, as  thus  used,  it  was  and  is  His  work  and  Word.  It  is  what  came  from 
God;  what  He  said  was  His  Word ;  what  He  gave  us  as  His  will,  that  consti- 
tutes that  "Word. 

All  that  God  deemed  necessary  to  make  that  Word  the  completed  fixed 
quantity,  definite  in  its  terms,  and  intelligible  to  men  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of 


[  15  J 

faith  and  practrce,  however  minor  or  uniiiiportaut  it  may  appear  to  our  finite 
minds,  is  a  part  of  the  AVord,  and  is  of  and  from  God,  no  matter  what  God 
used  as  an  agency  to  that  end. 

It  must  have  been  a  fixed  (juantity,  a  thing  possessing  the  essential  qual- 
ities of  being  immediately  inspired  by  God,  His  revelation  ;  what  He  designed 
•we  should  receive  as  His  Word.  Being  an  errorless  God,  what  He  gave  us 
must  have  had,  as  an  essential  quality,  inerrancy.  Have  we  that  Word  now? 
If  we  have,  it  is  errorless.  No  errors  can  be  in  that  of  which  He  is  the  au- 
thor. 

Does  that  Word  now  exist?  We,  who  have  taken  the  ordination  vow, 
and  have  affirmed  before  God  and  men,  that  it  does  exist,  and  exists  as  a  fixed 
quantity,  definite  and  specific  in  its  terms,  God-inspired,  inerrant  as  a  unit, 
are  conclusively  estopped  from  ever  raising  the  question  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  Word  of  God,  or  the  fact  of  its  inspiration,  its  inerrancy  as  a 
unit.  We  had  the  privilege  of  doing  this  before  we  took  the  vow  ;  but,  having 
vowed,  does  not  true  liberty,  implicit  obedience  to  law  and  fidelity  to  obliga- 
tion limit  our  inquiry  solely  to  what  God  has  said  in  his  Word? 

It  is  said  there  are  discrepancies  in  the  text  as  we  now  have  it.  What 
if  there  are?  Are  these  discrepancies  errors  or  untruths,  and  if  errors  or 
untruths,  are  they  God's  wcirk?  If  they  are,  how  can  it  be  the  Word  of  God? 
How  can   an   inerrant  God  produce  as  His  work  an  errant  revelation? 

Would  it  be  within  reason  to  charge  that  discrepancies  in  the  copy  of  a  law, 
such  as  the  work  of  the  scribe,  or  the  printer,  are  errors,  falsehoods  in  the  law  as 
enacted  by  the  legislature?  These  discrepancies  differ  entirely,  however,  from 
false  statements  of  fact,  errors  in  statement,  falsehoods  in  the  law  itself, 
placed  there  by  the  legislature,  inconsistent  with  its  purpose,  and  alike  de- 
structive of  the  character  of  its  author  and  the  validity  of  the  law. 

Does  not  this  vow  preclude  the  possibility  of  error  in  the  Word  of  God  ? 
Does  it  not  limit  the  subscriber  to  an  acceptance  of  the  book  as  immediately 
inspired  by  God,  and  is  not  his  inquiry  limited  to  what  God  has  said  therein  ? 

As  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  says  in  his  sermon  on  the  "  Supreme 
Authority  of  Revelation  :  " 

"Now  this  might  be  all  very  fair,  were  there  no  Bible  and  no  revelation 
in  existence.  But  it  is  not  fair,  that  all  this  looseness,  and  all  this  variety, 
should  be  still  floating  in  the  world,  in  the  face  of  an  authoritative  communi- 
cation from  God  himself     Had  no  message  come  to   us  from   the  Fountain- 


[  16  ] 

head  of  truth,  it  were  natural  enough  for  every  individual  mind  to  betake  it- 
self to  its  own  speculation.  But  a  message  has  come  to  us,  bearing  on  its  fore- 
head every  character  of  authenticity  ;  and  is  it  right  now,  that  the  question  of 
our  faith,  or  of  our  duty,  should  be  committed  to  the  capricious  variations  of 
this  man's  taste,  or  of  that  man's  fancy?  God  has  put  an  authoritative  stop 
to  all  this.  He  has  spoken,  and  the  right  or  the  liberty  of  speculation  no  longer 
remains  to  us.  The  question  now  is,  not  "What  thinkest  thou?"  In  the 
days  of  Pagan  antiquity,  no  other  question  could  be  put ;  and  to  the  wretched 
delusions  and  idolatries  of  that  period,  let  us  see  what  kind  of  answer  the  hu- 
man mind  is  capable  of  making,  when  left  to  its  own  guidance,  and  its  own 
authority.  But  we  call  ourselves  Christians,  and  profess  to  receive  the  Bible 
as  the  directory  of  our  faith  ;  and  the  only  question  in  which  we  are  con- 
cerned, is,  "  What  is  written  in  the  law?     How  readest  thou?" 

"  In  order  to  know  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  the  communications  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  expression  of  these  communications  in  written  language,  should  be 
consulted.  These  are  the  only  data  upon  which  the  inquiry  should  be  insti- 
tuted. .  .  .  Let  the  principle  of  "  What  thinkest  thou"  be  explodeil,  and 
that  of  "  What  readest  thou"  be  substituted  in  its  place.  Let  us  take  our  les- 
son as  the  Almighty  places  it  before  us,  and,  instead  of  being  the  judge  of  his 
conduct,  be  satisfied  with  the  safer  and  humbler  office  of  being  the  interpreter 
of  his  language.  .         . 

"  We  must  bring  a  free  and  unoccupied  mind  to  the  exercise.  It  must 
not  be  the  pride  or  the  obstinacy  of  self-formed  opinions,  or  the  haughty  inde- 
pendence of  him  who  thinks  he  has  reached  the  manhood  of  his  understanding. 
We  must  bring  with  us  the  docility  of  a  child,  if  we  want  to  gain  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  It  must  not  be  a  partial,  but  an  entire  and  unexcepted  obedi- 
ence. There  must  be  no  gai-bling  of  that  which  is  entire,  no  darkening  of 
that  which  is  luminous,  no  softening  down  of  that  which  is  authoritative  or 
severe.  The  Bible  will  allow  of  no  compromise.  It  professes  to  be  the  di- 
rectory of  our  faith,  and  claims  a  total  ascendency  over  the  souls  and  the  un- 
derstandings of  men.  It  will  enter  into  no  composition  with  us,  or  our  natural 
principles.  It  challenges  tiie  whole  mind  as  its  due,  and  it  appeals  to  the 
truth  of  heaven  for  the  high  authority  of  its  sanctions.  '  Whosoever  addeth  to, 
or  taketh  from,  the  words  of  this  book,  is  accursed,'  is  the  absolute  language 
in  which  it  delivers  itself  This  brings  us  to  its  terms.  There  is  no  way  of 
escaping  after  this.  We  must  bring  every  thought  into  the  captivity  of  its 
obedience,  and  as  closely  as  ever  lawyer  stuck  to  his  document  or  his  extract, 
must  we  abide  by  the  rule  and  the  doctrine  which  this  authentic  memorial  of 
God  sets  before  us.  .......... 

"  Our  business  is  not  to  guess,  but  to  learn.  After  we  have  established 
Christianity  to  be  an  authentic  message  from  God  upon  those  historical  grounds 


[  1' ] 

on  which  the  reason  and  the  experience  of  man  entitle  him  to  form  his  con- 
clusions, nothing  remains  for  us  but  an  unconditional  surrender  of  the  mind  to 
the  subject  of  the  message.  ........ 

"  Every  natural  or  assumed  principle,  which  offers  to  abridge  its  suprem- 
acy, or  even  so  much  as  to  share  with  it  in  authority  and  direction,  should  be 
instantly  discarded.  Every  opinion  in  religion  should  be  reduced  to  the  ques- 
tion of,  What  readest  thou?  and  the  Bible  be  accjuiesced  in,  and  submitted  to, 
as  the  alone  directory  of  our  faith,  where  we  can  get  the  whole  will  of  God  for 
the  salvation  of  man.  .........." 

"  In  the  popnlar  religions  of  antiquity,  we  see  scarcely  the  vestige  of  a 
resemblance  to  that  academical  theism  which  is  delivered  in  our  schools,  and 
figures  away  in  the  speculations  of  our  moralists.  The  process  of  conversion 
among  the  first  Christians  was  a  .very  simple  one.  It  consisted  of  an  utter 
abandonment  of  their  heathenism,  and  an  entire  submission  to  those  new 
truths  which  came  to  them  through  the  revelation  of  the  Gospel,  and  through 
it  only.  It  was  the  pure  theology  of  Christ  and  of  his  apostles.  That  theol- 
ogy which  struts  in  fancy  demonstration  from  a  professor's  chair  formed  no 
part  of  it.  They  listened  as  if  they  had  all  to  learn  ;  we  listen  as  if  it  was  our 
office  to  judge,  and  to  give  the  message  of  God  its  due  place  and  subordina- 
tion among  the  principles  which  we  had  previously  established.  Now,  these 
principles  were  utterly  unknown  at  the  first  publication  of  Christianity.  The 
Galatiaus,  and  C(jrinthiaus,  and  Thessalonians,  and  Philippians  had  no  con- 
ception of  them.  And  yet,  will  any  man  say,  that  either  Paul  himself,  or 
those  who  lived  under  his  immediate  tuition,  had  not  enough  to  make  them  ac- 
complished Christians,  or  that  they  fell  short  of  our  enlightened  selves,  in  the 
wisdom  which  prepares  for  eternity,  because  they  wanted  our  rational  theology 
as  a  stepping  stone  to  that  knowledge  which  came,  in  pure  and  immediate 
revelation,  from  the  Sou  of  God?  The  Gospel  was  euough  for  them,  and  it 
should  be  enough  for  us  also.  ........ 

"  But  is  not  this  an  enlightened  age,  and  since  the  days  of  the  Gospel  has 
not  the  wisdom  of  two  thousand  years  accumulated  upon  the  present  genera- 
tion? Has  not  science  been  enriched  by  discovery,  and  is  not  theology  one  of 
the  sciences  ?  Are  the  men  of  this  advanced  period  to  be  restrained  from  the 
high  exercise  of  their  powers?  And  because  the  men  of  a  remote  and  barbar- 
ous antiquity  lisped  and  driveled  in  the  infancy  of  their  acquirements,  is  that 
any  reason  why  we  should  be  restricted  like  so  many  school-boys,  to  the  lesson 
that  is  set  before  us  ?  It  is  all  true  that  this  is  a  very  enlightened  age  ;  but  on 
what  field  has  it  acquired  so  flattering  a  distinction  ?  On  the  field  of  experi- 
ment. The  human  mind  owes  all  its  progress  to  the  confinemeut  of  its  efforts 
within  the  safe  and  certain  limits  of  observation,  and  to  the  severe  restraint 
which  it  has  imposed  upon  its  speculative  tendency.  Go  beyond  these  limits 
and  the  human   mind  has  not  advanced  a  single  inch  by  its  own  independent 


[18] 

exercises.  All  the  philosophy  which  has  been  reared  by  the  labor  of  succes- 
sive ages,  is  the  philosophy  of  facts  reduced  to  general  laws,  or  brought  under 
a  general  description  from  observed  points  of  resenjblance.  A  proud  and 
wonderful  fabric  we  do  allow  ;  but  we  throw  away  the  very  instrument  by 
which  it  w'as  built  the  moment  that  we  cease  to  observe  and  begin  to  theorize 
and  excogitate.  Tell  us  a  single  discovery  which  has  thrown  a  particle  of  light 
on  the  details  of  the  divine  administration.  Tell  us  a  single  truth  in  the 
whole  field  of  experimental  science,  which  can  bring  us  to  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  Almighty  by  any  other  road  than  his  own  revelation." 

We  commend  to  every  reader  of  this  pamphlet  a  reading  of  the  entire  ser- 
mon from  which  we  have  quoted  so  liberally.  These  are  the  words,  the  faith, 
of  one  of  the  most  gifted  intellectually  and  scientifically  of  the  sons  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ;  the  giant  of  his  time ;  one  of  the  noblest,  bravest,  and 
most  effective  champions  for  liberty  we  have  had  in  this  century.  A  certain 
school  of  critics  would  sneer  at  Dr.  Chalmers  as  narrow,  bigoted,  behind 
the  age.  May  we  be  delivered  from  the  unconscious  self-righteousness  and 
intellectual  littleness  of  such  a  sneer. 

This  is  the  jubilee  year  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  1843-1893. 
Fifty  years  ago — May,  1843 — there  filed  out  of  St.  Andrew's  Church,  Edin- 
burgh, that  memorable  procession  of  four  hundred  ministers,  headed  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Welsh  (the  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly)  and  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Chalmers.  The  world  has  seen  but  few  grander  testimonies  and  sacrifices  to 
liberty  and  fidelity  to  conviction,  conscience,  and  the  Word  of  God.  There 
were  Presbyterian  giants  in  those  days — Chalmers,  Cunningham,  Candlish, 
Duff,  Guthrie,  et  al. — men  of  giant  faith,  intellect,  and  scholarship,  who  stood 
as  the  rock  for  an  inerrant  God  and  His  inerrant  Word.  What  would  they 
say  if  with  us  now,  as  to  the  modern  attacks  of  know-nothing,  destructive 
criticism  on  the  inerrancy,  the  integrity  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  that,  too, 
under  the  name  of  liberty  and  as  consistent  with  and  a  part  of  the  ordination 
vow  of  our  beloved  Presbyterian  Church  ? 

"  The  Effect  of  the  Vow." 

Is  not  the  subscriber  to  this  vow,  by  its  very  terms,  by  every  rule  of  common 
honesty,  precluded  from  assailing  any  part  of  this  book  as  errant,  as  other  than 
the  Word  of  God,  immediately  inspired  by  Him?  If  the  examination  and  in- 
vestigations of  his  scholarship,  of  higher  criticism  so-called,  his  every  thought 


[  19] 

and  service,  start  from  aud  rest  on  the  foundation  that  this  is  in  every  part 
God's  word,  inerrant,  immediately  inspired  by  God,  is  not  his  business,  study, 
thought  and  teaching  limited  to  ascertaining  what  God  has  said  therein?  Is 
it  not  a  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  vow  to  intimate  or  insinuate  that  in  any 
part  of  this  God-given  and  inspired  Word,  God  is  absent  and  errant  man  is 
present.  Is  not  every  thing  on  his  part  that  directly  tends  to  disturb  faith  in 
this  as  the  inerrant  Word  of  God,  equally  against  the  vow?  How  can 
he  question  its  statements?  Must  they  not  be  accepted  by  him  as  from  God, 
without  question  or  controversy?  Let  there  be  no  misunderstanding  here. 
How  can  there  be  any  room,  under  the  terms  of  this  vow,  for  questioning  as 
from  God  any  part  of  the  fixed  quantity  subscribed  to  as  the  Word  of  God, 
as  being  in  any  sense  the  separate  work  of  errant  man  ?  If  this  question  is  to 
be  raised  and  this  assault  made  on  the  integrity  of  the  Word  of  God,  must  it 
not  be  done  by  those  outside  of  the  Church — by  those  who  have  not  taken  this 
ordination  vow? 

Drs.  Hamlin  and  Van  Dyke. 

Here  let  us  consider  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  declarations  of 
Drs.  Hamlin  and  Vandyke  in  the  light  of  this  vow,  as  to  this  so-called  in- 
errancy theory  being  wholly  in  the  air,  and  as  to  which  they  can  neither  affirm 
nor  deny  inerrancy  without  the  original  manuscripts. 

When  they  subscribed  to  the  ordination  vow  and  affirmed  the  Scriptures 
to  be  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  permit 
us  to  ask  what  book  was  in  their  minds  to  which  they  thus  subscribed;  what 
was  the  definite,  fixed  Word  of  God  to  which  they  assented  and  in  which  they 
believed?  Was  it  errant,  or  inerrant,  or  a  mixture?  If  a  mixture  of  errancy 
and  inerrancy,  what  part  was  inerrant  and  what  part  was  errant?  If  all  in- 
errant, then  why  these  declarations  against  inerrancy  now  ?  If  errant,  how 
could  it  be  the  Word  of  God,  so  as  to  warrant  their  subscription  to  it  as  such? 
Leaving  theories,  which  they  say  they  have  no  use  for,  and  coming  to  facts 
which  they  believe  in,  what  kind  of  a  Word  of  God,  as  a  definite,  fixed  and 
certain  quantity,  was  present  in  their  minds  when,  in  the  presence  of  God, 
they  solemnly  affirmed  it  to  be  His  Word?  Was  it  errant?  Then  it  has 
always  been  so.  If  errant  in  whole  or  in  part,  how  could  it  be  the  Word  of 
God — the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice? 

These  gentlemen  can  not  claim,  when  they  subscribed  to  this  vow,  that 
the  whole  subject  of  it  was  in  the  air,  indefinite  and  chaotic,  and  that  there  was 


[  20  ] 

not  present  in  their  minds  a  definite,  fixed  book  or  quantity  of  any  kind,  cer- 
tain in  its  terms  and  intelligible  to  their  faith.  They  must  have  had  in  their 
minds  as  the  object  of  their  faith  an  existing,  definite  book  or  compilation 
whose  terms,  statements  and  contents  they  knew  and  to  which  they  subscribed 
as  the  Word  of  God.  Did  they  believe  that  book  to  be  inerrant,  God-inspired, 
in  all  its  parts,  terms,  and  statements,  and  therefore  the  Word  of  God ;  or  did 
they  believe  that  some  of  its  parts  were  errant  and  some  inerrant,  with  no  definite 
idea  as  to  which  was  which?  If  so,  how  could  they  affirm  it  as  a  whole,  as  a 
unit,  to  be  the  Word  of  God  ?  How  could  they  believe,  we  repeat,  a  book 
errant  in  parts  to  be  as  a  Avhole  the  Word  of  an  inerfant  God  ?  If  they  be- 
lieved it  to  be  inerrant  in  all  its  parts  and  tliat  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  and 
is  the  only  Word  God  has  given  to  the  race,  why  can  they  not  affirm  it  was 
and  is  and  always  has  been  the  inerrant  Word  of  God  ?  How  can  it  be  iner- 
rant now  and  yet  have  been  errant  at  some  other  time,  when  it  is  the  only  rev- 
elation given  by  God,  fixed  in  its  terms  and  definite  in  its  contents? 

Unless  the  Word  of  God,  the  work  of  an  inerrant  God,  can  in  any  part 
be  errant  and  still  be  the  Word  of  God,  which  we  claim  is  an  utter  impossi- 
bility, must  it  not  have  been,  when  received,  and  must  it  not  ever  continue  to 
to  be,  inerrant  ? 

Is  there  room  for  any  other  construction  of  the  ordination  vow  than  that 
its  terms  embrace  a  belief  in  the  Word  of  God  as  inerrant — inerrant  when 
God  gave  it — inerrant  now — and  inerrant  it  must  ever  remain,  and  that  this 
excludes  even  the  negative,  can't-affirm-or-can't-deny  attitude  as  to  the  iner- 
rancy of  what  are  called  the  original  manuscripts,  and  excludes  the  belief  that 
the  Word  of  God  is  now  or  ever  has  been  errant  in  any  of  its  parts  ? 

III. 

ARE  THE  TERMS  OF  THE  VOW  BROAD  ENOUGH  TO  EMBRACE  THOSE  WHO  BELIEVE 
THE  SO-CALLED  MANUSCRIPTS  WERE  INERRANT,  AND  THOSE  WHO  BELIEVE 
THEY  WERE  ERRANT,  AND  THOSE  WHO  CAN  NEITHER  AFFIRM  NOR  DENY 
EITHER  THEIR  INERRANCY  OR  ERRANCY? 

If  the  foregoing  position  is  correct,  that  the  subscriber  to  the  ordination  vow 
that  the  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God  must  have  had  in  his  mind,  and  must 
in  so  subscribing  have  affirmed  that  this  Word  of  God,  a  fixed  quantity,  definite 
in  its  terms,  and  existing  as  a  book  or  unit — is  the  Word  of  God,  inimediately 


[21  ] 

inspired  by  Him,  it  must  be,  and  must  have  been  so,  when  given,  and  like  all 
God  has  given,  iuerraut,  unchangeable,  perfect  and  complete;  then  must  not 
the  terms  of  the  vow  necessarily  exclude  the  negative,  know-nothing,  can' t- 
prove  attitude  as  well  as  they  certainly  exclude  a  belief  in  errors  in  the  ori- 
ginal manuscripts,  or  in  the  Word  of  God  ? 

Shall  the  writer  be  compelled  to  regard  as  in  good  standing  as  a  Presbyte- 
rian elder  one  who  denies  we  have  a  Word  of  God,  denies  its  inspiration  or 
inerrancy?  If  not,  how  does  this  differ  from  being  compelled  to  treat  as  a  loyal 
Presbyterian  elder  .one  who,  having  subscribed  to  this  vow,  affirms  there  were 
errors  in  the  original,  errors  in  tlie  Bible  as  it  now  is;  that  the  original  was 
not  inerrant,  neither  is  the  Bible  as  it  is,  iuerrant— that  it  is  only  true  in  parts 
and  is  false  in  parts,  without  any  revelation  of  such  a  classification  ? 

The  inerrancy,  God-inspiration,  and  infallibility  of  the  Word  of  God  in 
all  its  parts  and  as  a  unit,  as  a  whole,  is  the  foundation  of  our  faith — is  the 
only  rock  of  certainty  on  which  we  can  rest.  To  assail,  doubt,  or  deny  that 
inerrancy — that  God-inspiration — is  to.strike  a  blow  at  the  rock  on  which  our 
faith  rests;  and  that  blow  is  struck,  too,  by  those  who  claim  to  belong  to  our 
household  of  faith,  are  in  good  and  regular  standing  therein,  and  have  ob- 
tained that  standing  and  position  for  assault  by  a  subscription  or  affirmation 
to  a  solemn  vow  that  the  Scriptures  thus  assailed  are  the  Word  of  God,  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Is  it  unjust,  unfair  to  say,  that  those  in  our  ranks  who  assail  the  integrity, 
the  inspiration  of  God's  Word  in  parts,  by  affirming  it  contains  eri'ors  or 
falsehoods,  would  not  be  listened  to  by  one  of  the  thousands  that  now  read 
what  they  say,  but  for  the  position  they  are  given  by  the  church  whose  faith 
they  are  now  engaged  in  destroying? 

The  Neiv  Faith.     The  New  Vow. 

Are  we  not  warranted  in  charging  the  attempt  to  so  enlarge  the  ordination 
vow  to  be  the  creation  of  a  new  faith,  a  radical  departure  from  her  historic 
faith,  a  new  creed  and  a  new  standard  for  the  Presbyterian  Church?  To  en- 
large the  terms  of  the  vow  in  the  name  of  liberty  so  as  to  permit  men  to 
be  ministers,  elders  or  deacons  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  who  deny  the 
inerrancy  of  the  Word  of  God  in  all  its  parts,  who  affirm  it  to  be  errant, 
false  in  parts  and  inerrant  in  parts,  is  to  create  a  faith  which  the  Presby- 
terian   Church    never   has    believed   in,    and  is  to  throw   a   burden   on   and 


[  22  ] 

make  it  repugnant  to  the  consciences  of  those  who  subscribed  to  it  as  in- 
terpreted b}'  the  historic  faith  of  the  Church  and  by  the  plain,  natural,  com- 
mon-sense meaning  of  its  terms.  Are  not  these  the  men  that  are  imposing  a  new 
test  of  orthodoxy  and  insisting  on  a  fellowship  which  the  conscience  should  not 
be  asked  to  tolerate,  and  this  in  the  name  of  liberty  ?  The  vow  that  tolerates 
differences  in  non-essentials  and  accords  liberty  therein,  as  rigidly  excludes 
differences  on  essentials — on  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  our  Presbyterian 
faith,  and  this  is  the  only  liberty  worthy  of  the  name. 

If  this  be  true,  how  can  the  can't-affirm,  the  can't-prove-or-ean't-deny  attitude, 
as  Avell  as  the  belief  in  errors,  falsehoods,  in  the  original,  be  embraced  in  the 
terms  of  the  vow  ?  Is  not  any  attempt,  even  in  the  name  of  liberty,  or  for 
peace,  to  enlarge  the  terras  of  the  vow  to  include  them,  the  making  of  a  new 
faith;  an  enlargement  of  the  terms  and  scope  of  the  vow  compelling  those  who 
have  subscribed  to  it  to  accept  as  their  faith  something  they  never  agreed  to  do  ? 
How  can  two  walk  together  unless  they  be  agreed  ?  Why  should  they  be  com- 
pelled  to  fellowship  if  in  disagreement  o^n  essential  articles  of  faith?  To  com- 
pel a  man  who  believes  in  the  inerrant  Word,  that  is  now  and  ever  has  been 
inerrant,  who  believes  that  without  that  inerrancy  in  all  its  parts  as  it  cam'e 
from  God  and  now  is,  it  can  not  be  the  Word  of  God,  to  fellowship  with  one 
who  believes  the  Bible  is  now  or  ever  has  been  errant  in  some  of  its  parts,  is  to 
make  a  man  violate  conscience,  surrender  principle  and  make  shipwreck  of  faith. 
To  force  this  on  him  in  the  name  of  liberty  is  intolerance  and  oppression. 

"  What  the  Voiv  Does  Not  Cover." 

How  can  the  ordination  vow  embrace  in  its  terms,  even  under  the  name 
of  liberty  and  toleration  of  differences,  direct  contradictions  of  essentials,  of 
fundamental  articles  of  faith  ?  How  can  it  permit  a  belief  in  an  errant  God, 
and  also  in  an  inerrant  God?  How  can  it  permit  a  belief  in  the  Word 
of  God  as  a  unit,  true  in  some  statements,  and  false  in  others?  How  can 
it  permit  a  belief  in  Christ  as  God  and  man  in  the  absence  of  the  original, 
and  also  a  belief  in  Christ  as  a  mere  man?  How  can  it  permit  a  belief  that 
neither  affirms  nor  denies,  because  of  the  absence  of  the  original  Christ,  that 
he  was  God,  possessed  the  qualities  of  God,  and  also  a  belief  that  he  was 
not  God  ? 

The  enlargement  of  the  ordination  vow  in  the  name  of  liberty  to  permit 
such  contradictions  is  intolerance,  is  a  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  vow,  and 


I 


[23] 

is  the  creation  of  a  new  test  or  standard  of  orthodoxy  which  the  conscience  re- 
jects, common  honesty  repudiates,  and  which  is  a  libel  on  liberty. 

Is  not  this  modern  school  of  can't-tells,  of  know-notliings,  can't-prove,  can't- 
affirm-or-deny  that  the  Word  of  an  inerrant  God,  as  it  came  from  Hira, 
and  now  is,  must  have  been,  and  must  be  inerrant,  attempting  to  create  a  new 
ordination  vow,  and  a  new  faith  for  the  Presbyterian  Church,  under  whose  en- 
larged terms,  in  the  name  of  liberty,  Martiueau  and  Newman  are  as  good 
Presbyterians  as  Thomas  Chalmers  and  Archibald  Alexander  ?  The  reason, 
the  conscience,  of  every  subscriber  to  the  ordination  vow  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  as  it  now  stands,  has  a  right  to  revolt  against  such  a  construction  of 
its  terms,  and  the  creation  of  such  a  standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  this  in  the 
exercise  of  the  largest  liberty  and  legitimate  toleration  of  differences. 

We  have  had  no  new  revelation  from  God.  It  is  the  same  old  Bible. 
Modern  scholarship  can  neither  add  to  nor  take  from  what  God  has  said.  Its 
mission  is  limited  to  ascertaining  what  God  has  said  under  the  enlightening  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

.  Loyality  to  our  ordination  vows  and  fidelity  to  our  obligations  ought  not 
to  be  affected  by  the  modern  clamor  for  a  larger  liberty,  nor  the  needless  fear 
of  strife,  dissensions  and  secession  in  this  crisis  forced  on  our  beloved  Presby- 
terian Church,  nor  the  discussion  and  feeling  incident  to  it.    Let  us  remember  : 

a.  That  no  men,  or  class  of  men,  in  our  Church,  have  a  monopoly  of  the 
spirit  of  patience,  fairness,  peace  and  a  desire  for  the  winning  of  souls. 

The  unconscious  self-righteousness,  which  seems  to  have  prompted  and 
which  characterizes  some  recent  sermons  and  appeals,  is  appalling.  Who  au- 
thorizes anyone  to  assume  that  those  who  differ  from  him  are  any  less  earnest 
in  soul-winning  than  he  is;  any  less  fair  or  patient  in  discussion,  or  any  less 
desirous  for  peace  and  work  consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  the  historic 
faith  of  our  Church? 

b.  The  constitution  of  our  beloved  Church,  by  which  we  are  all  bound, 
and  which  we  ought  to  be  zealous  in  maintaining,  has  provided  competent  tri- 
bunals to  determine  all  questions  of  faith,  and  to  those  tribunal's  must  be  left 
the  decision  of  the  pending  cases — whether  the  issues  involved  and  the  teach- 

,  ing  of  those  charged  with  violation  of  their  ordination  vows  are  important  and 
essential  or  otherwise.  As  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  well 
said : 


[24] 

"  It  is  of  the  essence  of  these  religious  unions  and  of  their  right  to  es- 
tablish tribunals  for  the  decision  of  questions  arising  among  themselves, 
that  those  decisions  should  be  binding  in  all  cases  of  ecclesiastical  cognizance, 
subject  only  to  such  appeals  as  the  organism  itself  provides  for." 

c.  May  we  be  saved  from  the  insanity  of  folly  of  denouncing  our  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  the  supreme  judicial  court  of  our  Church,  as  a  "  mob,"  "  swayed 
by  impulse  " — as  "  any  thing  but  a  deliberative  body" — when  its  decisions  do  not 
conform  to  our  preconceived  opinions  or  wishes.  May  we  be  saved  from  the 
like  folly  of  eulogizing  it  as  a  solemn  and  deliberative  body,  actuated  by  wis- 
dom and  justice,  "  only"  when  its  decisions  do  conform  to  our  views  and  wishes. 
Let  us  imitate  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  its  appreciation  of  the 
importance  of  that  tribunal  and  the  fitness  of  its  members  for  the  decision  of 
the  important  questions  committed  to  its  care.  We  quote  the  language  of  that 
court  in  tli€  Walnut  Street  Presbyterian  Church  case,  Watsoji  v.  Jones,  13 
Wallace,  610: 

"Nor  do  we  see  that  justice  would  be  likely  to  be  promoted  by  submitting 
those  decisions  to  review  in  the  ordinary  judicial  tribunals.  Each  of  those  large 
and  influential  bodies  (to  mention  no  others,  let  reference  be  had  to  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  and  the  Presbyterian  churches),  has 
a  body  of  constitutional  and  ecclesiastical  law  of  its  own,  to  be  found  in  their 
written  organic  laws,  their  books  of  discipline,  in  their  collections  of  precedents, 
in  their,  usage  and  customs,  which  as  to  each  constitute  a  system  of  ecclesiastical 
law  and  religious  faith  that  tasks  the  ablest  minds  to  become  familiar  with.  '  It 
is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  judges  of  the  civil  courts  can  be  as  competent  in 
the  ecclesiastical  law  and  religious  faith  of  all  these  bodies  as  the  ablest  men  in 
each  are  in  reference  to  their  own.  It  would,  therefore,  be  an  appeal  from  the 
more  learned  tribunal  in  the  law  which  should  decide  the  case,  to  one  which  is 
less  so.'" 

d.  Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  God  reigns,  that  our  beloved  Church  with  its 
historic  faith,  is  his  special  care,  and  that  no  man  or  body  of  men  in  our 
Church  are  essential  to  her  permanent  welfare  or  to  the  wise  solution  of  all  that 
God  has  committed  to  her  keeping. 


[25] 


THE  INERRANT  WORD. 


Inspired  of  God,  inerraut  Word, 

The  Falher'.s  will  revealed. 
Eternal  truth,  Altuighty  Lord, 

Unerring  wisdom  sealed. 
lu  all  its  parts,  in  every  line, 

As  frvni  His  hand  it  came, 
Inerrant  is  the  book  divine. 

Unchangeably  the  same. 

Infinite  love  gave  us  the  Word, 

Inerrant  skill  each  page, 
God's  gift  to  man  with  treasures  stored 

For  every  need  and  age. 
No  skill  of  self-sufficient  man 

Can  change  its  verity; 
No  sneer  nor  hate  of  sceptic  can 

Destroy  its  purity. 

Inerraut  God,  no  word  of  Thine 

Is  work  of  errant  hand  ; 
Help  finite  minds,  Spirit  divine. 

Thy  Word  to  understand. 
"Tlius  saith  the  Lord,"  and  erring  man 

Hears  only  to  obey; 
God's  gracious  Avill  and  holy  plan, 

Man's  only  rock  and  stay. 

Thy  Church,  O  God,  will  stand  secure 

On  Thine  inerrant  Word, 
And  in  the  conflict  still  endure 

And  triumph  in  her  Lord. 
People  of  God,  here  rest  your  faith  : 

Eternal  truth  will  live ; 
To  those  who  trust  Him,  as  He  saith, 

Eternal  life  He'll  ofive. 


Cincinnati,  March  5,  1893. 


fulord  rzr^ 


PAMPHIET  BINDER 

^Z3    Syrocuse,  N.   Y. 
^^    Stockton,  Calif. 


BS480.M137C.2 

Is  inerrancy  a  new  test  of  orthodoxy? 

Princeton  Theological  Semlnary-Speer  Library 


